mfuns_react

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the mutating behavior (like, cancel like, dislike) and implies reversibility through 'cancel', but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or consequences like public reaction counts. This is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: one summary line followed by a clear Args block. Every line adds necessary parameter semantics with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple reaction tool, the description covers all parameters and core behavior, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It omits optional context such as whether cancel also removes dislikes or whether authentication is required, but overall is complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by defining resource_type with labeled options, resource_id, and action with defaults and allowed values. This adds concrete meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs '点赞/取消点赞/点踩' and lists resource types (article/video/comment/feed), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mfuns_favorite or mfuns_comment. The resource_id and action options further specify the operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage via action options (like/cancel/dislike) and resource_type list, but does not explicitly state when to prefer mfuns_react over alternatives such as mfuns_favorite or mfuns_comment. No when/not or alternative guidance is present, so it only reaches implied usage level.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.